The key is making it enforceable. There's a rental unit license bylaw in London Ontario, but the estimates are that only 10% of the rental units are actually licensed. The city doesn't have the resources to enforce it. And the property owners who are likely the worst offenders are going to be the ones that don't register so it becomes a cash grab for property owners who are already following the rules.

If the complaints are noise then the tenants should be the ones getting noise violation fines. In London there are already a number of bylaws and if these were enforced through processes that were already in place the licensing just becomes a cash grab. And the problem is that the cost to the city is higher than the revenue so it's basically just a drain on the city budgets.

In Ottawa (and I'm guessing it's province-wide bit I'm not sure) non-profit housing organizations are required to pay for a 'Rooming House Licence' which sounds very similar to what's being proposed here. As non-profits receive Gov't funding, we were the first 'landlords' to be hit with the annual Rooming House Licencing fee of approximately $180 per property. The privately-owned Rooming Houses next door didn't register so, surprise, they don't pay the licence. (I have this info on good authority - got it first hand from the neighbouring Rooming House owner.). The Licencing requires 4-5 annual inspections (health, fire, electrical, building etc.) ANNUALLY! If any deficiencies are found, there is a timeframe within which the Landlord must comply. Now, what homeowner EVER has a follow-up health, fire etc. inspection after they move into their home? If you're argument is that it's a rental, then why haven't big, multi-unit apartment buildings been selected?I am perplexed as to why it's being suggested that Landlords are responsible for noise and other bylaw infractions? Is that not what BYLAW OFFICERS and the Police are here to do?Instead of making every Landlird pay for the bad properties (especially when it will be a program that runs in the red!) why not let these already in place trained personnel do their jobs?This is NOT another level of admin that our Gov't needs!!

If you licence a landlord will that quiet down the tenants breaking by law infractions? No! total cash grab and bs thought up by someone who knows nothing of the landlords burden already exiting. If theirs a problem you go to the reliable tenant board that sorts out disputes in a quickly and efficient matter.

Total bull and a cash grab. The Tenancy Act sets guidelines sets the annual rental increases, thus governing profitability of a business (being a landlord is a business) and then the self-righteous politicians want to impose a licensing fee that will eat into the bottom line. This is worse than communism. If these geniuses want to raise some money and control the noise and pollution, then maybe they should be licensing tenants? If you are going to license landlords, then license the tenants, too. Charge them $10. If the landlord complaints that these tenants are a nuisance who don't pay and/or create disturbance, then the tenant loses their license. Tenants need to have respect for the properties they occupy, but they don't because then can get away with murder under the protection of the law and commies in our government.

As someone working with Landlords and Tenants on a continual basis I do not see enough benefit to carry out this new licensing fee and from discussions with Landlords most do not see how this will really benefit them.

I can understand what they are trying to do but really not needed and I personally disagree with adding another fee to their bottom line. Personally the ones that will benefit the most is the people getting this fee. We do have the tenant board, by-law, inspector and police in place for a reason.